Talk:Aurelia (planet)
Pages for deletion Deletion rationale I suggest the page on Aurelia (planet) be deleted since, as far as I know, no decision to create pages based on info exclusively from script info has been made. Personally, I think it'd be different if the planet appeared, etc., but I don't think it's even referenced, so I don't see the point of having this page. --Defiant 15:24, August 24, 2011 (UTC) Discussion The page is designed as a production POV page (realworld header, no in-universe categories, Category:Unreferenced material), so it is not a standard (=in-universe) article. Oppose deletion, at least based on the reasons given. If you want all "unreferenced material" information to be deleted, that should better be discussed centrally. -- Cid Highwind 16:08, August 24, 2011 (UTC) :Comment - As far as I can see, this page is the only one whose content comes exclusively from the script, though. I'm not suggesting getting rid of pages like Martin Madden and Androna. There is a clear distinction (albeit one that you clearly haven't recognized, not to mention the fact that the correct word is "keep", rather than "oppose deletion"). --Defiant 16:19, August 24, 2011 (UTC) Keep, then. Whatever floats your boat - not that the intention wasn't totally clear before. The rest of your comment doesn't convince me to change that opinion. -- Cid Highwind 16:53, August 24, 2011 (UTC) Comment: If it was only ever mentioned in a script, I'd be tempted to say either: * merge it with the episode article, or * start allowing unfilmed script production POV pages for all such items. -- sulfur 17:24, August 24, 2011 (UTC) :Comment: I completely agree, which is why I'm interested in ascertaining whether the consensus is for the former or latter. --Defiant 17:34, August 24, 2011 (UTC) :I fear that the latter might open a "can of worms" of pages that we have no basis for other than a single user's word, or that sort of thing. It's a different scenario to how we currently treat deleted scenes info, which is generally confirmable from a variety of sources, and could be much messier than our current policy of allowing script info as bg info for in-universe pages (which is a lot easier to clean up, if found to be incorrect). --Defiant 17:43, August 24, 2011 (UTC) ::See, I wouldn't mind a discussion about allowing or not allowing this whole type of article, and I've already said as much above. This deletion discussion, however, has been started because "no decision to have these articles has been made" (although the category page declared "script-only info" to be in its scope 4.5 years ago) and because "the object may be unreferenced" (D'Oh! - that's why it is categorized as "unreferenced material"). The following discussion looks more like trying to match the reasons to the wanted outcome than the other way around. Merging, as sulfur suggested, is always an option if the article is short, but boils down to non-deletion of the content itself... -- Cid Highwind 18:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC) :::I think this should be merged with the episode article if it's not already in there as it is, after all, background information. If we did this for every similar item, we'd end up with dozens of one or two line articles. Deleted scenes I can understand, but script info - that should just go in the episode article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:55, August 24, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose' deletion. (Or Keep, it doesn't matter) What is "unreferenced material" if it doesn't include unfilmed script information? The category page even says scripts are valid sources of information for the category.--31dot 18:54, August 24, 2011 (UTC) :Comment - our policy on this type of page obviously isn't very set-in-stone, yet, if this is the only one of its kind. --Defiant 22:10, August 24, 2011 (UTC) :In fact, we usually try to avoid stubs, adding more info if possible. The acceptance of a rule that okays this article would not only allow it to remain as a stub, but many other articles too. There seemed (and still seems) like more point in discussing this issue particularly in regard to this article, as no others exist (yet). I fail to see the problem with simply including this info on the Aurelian page, rather than directing users to a page that hardly says anything, when all it does say can conveniently be instead found on the more appropriate page. --Defiant 22:21, August 24, 2011 (UTC) ::As already stated above, there is no general problem with page merges - we've got a detailed procedure for that sort of thing, after all. A "merge" is not a "deletion", though - most obvious from the fact that a merge typically keeps the old page title alive as a redirect - so if the outcome of this discussion is that this specific content should be merged to some specific other page, it will not help you in any way or form if your goal is to have "script-only objects" removed from this site (because "merge" basically means "don't delete the content"). That is the problem I have with this whole discussion - whatever its goal is, it most likely is held in the wrong place right now. -- Cid Highwind 22:33, August 24, 2011 (UTC) :Oh, right. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Cid, and clarifying it; I didn't realize my error, so "D'Oh!" is right! :) Can we work out what the consensus is for this, then; whether to merge with "Aurelian" or keep "Aurelia (planet)" just as it is? --Defiant 22:45, August 24, 2011 (UTC) *'keep'. "unreferenced material" is tailor-made for this kind of stuff, even if it doesn't contain much script material yet. It's description even explicitly allows this. The only reason there aren't more articles like this is because they have usually been quietly merged into episode pages, not quite in allignment with the policy set when unreferenced material was created. And I think it's a faulty assumption that all articles from scripts would be very short (yes, short, which is different from being a stub), which isn't the case, see this article (which btw should also fall under this deletion discussion). I just don't buy these "the sky falling, can of worms" arguments, we're talking about a tiny amount of articles even if this decision might double or triple the content of the category. Note that (apart from huge discussions on what type of references we should incorporate :D) there have been very few major issues with articles in the category, the category is doing fine and I don't see why that would change if we allow this. -- Capricorn 22:52, August 24, 2011 (UTC) ::A detail that hasn't been brought up yet is the fact that the article has a disambiguated title. If the content in question gets merged (to "Aurelian"), the other article ("Aurelia (composer)") could and should be moved to simply Aurelia. A background note stating that "this name had also been used for the "Aurelian" homeworld in a script" could then be added to that article, making all valid information available from every place that might get searched for it. -- Cid Highwind 10:52, August 25, 2011 (UTC) :The ruling on "unreferenced materials" seems really open to interpretation, since (for example) this page is linked to in the in-universe section of the "Aurelian" article, when its mere existence is based on only scripted info, whereas info about Sarek from a scene that was actually shot before being deleted has to be consigned to the bg info section of the Sarek article. That seems a lot like double standards to me! --Defiant 17:00, September 11, 2011 (UTC) ::It's not a double standard, it's just an oversight. I don't think anyone ever suggested that links to pages like Aurelia belong anywhere else then in the background. -- Capricorn 01:45, September 12, 2011 (UTC) Admin resolution Keeping this page; no consensus to delete.--31dot 19:32, October 6, 2011 (UTC)